Case law

Smith v. Pliler

280 F. Supp. 2d 990 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 28, 2003

Henry v. Keman, 197 F.8d 1021, 1081 (9th Cir.1999). … Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 468 (9th Cir.1994) (quoting Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1021-22 , 108 S.Ct. 2798 , 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988)).

Cress v. Nexo Financial LLC

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 4, 2025

v. … Consider the case of SEC v. Telegram, 448 F.

Williams v. City & Cty. of San Francisco

483 F. Supp. 335 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 26, 1979

The interviewing was accomplished by five different boards, four with four members and one with three members. … First, it requires adoption of the Griggs v.

American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Naviera Andes Peruana, S.A.

208 F. Supp. 164 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 13, 1962

Under the rule of United States v. … [See also Seaboard Stevedoring Co. v.

City of Hollywood Firefighters' Pension System v. Wells Fargo & Company

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 5, 2024

Co., Inc. v. … Nakash v.

In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 22, 2023

Kamakana v. City and Cnty. Of 24 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 25 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). … June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found 11 “confidential business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the 12 compelling reasons standard.); Brown v. Brown, No.

United States v. Chemicals for Research and Industry

10 F. Supp. 2d 1125 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 12, 1998

First, in CFRI v. … Against Regis *1128 tration and the Draft v. Governing Board of Grossmont Union High School Dist., 790 F.2d 1471 , 1473 n. 3 (9th Cir.1986)).

Quiroz v. Horel

85 F. Supp. 3d 1115 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 31, 2015

V.) … V.

In Re Convergent Technologies Securities Litigation

108 F.R.D. 328 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 28, 1985

As Professor Campbell points out, for example, the court in S.E.C. v. North American Research & Development Corp. … The court recognizes, of course, that Rule 26(b)(3), in terms, protects only documents and tangible things; but Hickman v.

In Re Capital West Investors

180 B.R. 240 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 12, 1995

The Ninth Circuit confronted a similar issue in National Labor Relations Board v. Westphal, 859 F.2d 818 (9th Cir.1988). … In Hebert v.

Silva v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re GVF Cannery, Inc.)

202 B.R. 140 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 11, 1996

In January of 1989, GVF’s chairman of the board, Fred Avalli, and another GVF employee, Tim Brooks, contacted Silva to see if he would agree to sell GVF 7,000 tons of tomatoes. … See Ginns v.

McIlwain

District Court, N.D. California · May 24, 2018

After further negotiations, lengthened by the on-boarding of Hart’s new counsel, the parties reached a later agreement in 2014, and the Northern District of California then approved the settlement. Id. … Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011) (citations omitted).

Bibbs v. Macay

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 5, 2023

Thornton v. … Edwards v.

Kogelis v. Bowen

663 F. Supp. 305 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 14, 1987

Lewin v. Schweiker, 654 F.2d 631, 635 (9th Cir.1981). … Fife v.

Vargas v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A.

999 F. Supp. 2d 1171 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 2, 2013

Bates v. … See, e.g., Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co., 276 U.S. 518, 524 , 48 S.Ct. 404 , 72 L.Ed. 681 (1928).

Phillips v. Cobham Advanced Electronic Solutions, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 19, 2025

The Board Defendants include the “Board of Directors of CAES Systems, LLC and/or the Board of Directors of Cobham 1 monitor the Committee. Id. ¶¶ 242-248. … Tibble v.

Mitchell v. Ayers

309 F. Supp. 2d 1146 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 11, 2004

See, e.g., Luna v. … v.

Spruell v. Kijakazi

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 6, 2023

Lester v. … Buck v.

S.J.T. v. Nelson

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 4, 2025

California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558, 575 (9th 18 Cir. 2018). A preliminary injunction preserves the status quo and parties’ rights until final 19 judgment. U.S. Philips Corp. v. … . § 1252(a)(5); J.E.F.M. v.

United States v. Cerna

633 F. Supp. 2d 1053 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 26, 2009

This was a square holding of Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 441-54 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 , 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995). Accord: Silva v. Brown, 416 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir.2005); Carriger v. … See United States v.